Where do people on ATS stand on this?

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction

When people misuse or mistake the meaning of theory when it applies to the sciences it makes me cringe in embarrassment for them.

Thank you, I stand corrected oh Google guru.

When I read your post I wondered what your motivation was to only correct me and not address my thoughts at all. Was it to discredit my statement? Was it only to demonstrate a superior attitude as you “cringe in embarrassment”? Or was it that you just could not fathom my point because of my word usage?

Touché on your Ad Hominem my friend

BTW even though you are correct that I should have used the word hypothesis here is also a definition of theory.

“In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.”

reply to post by Rasobasi420


Have you never heard of the Declaration of Independance???
"endowed by our Creator with certain inaliable rights...."
Did you know the church services held by our founding fathers before, during and after meetings???
George Washington thanked God for saving his life, many times.

Also, Melatonin,
spare your condescension for public school students like I was,
before I quit in 9th grade just to get away from all the meaningless
amorality!!!
Homeschoolers excel way beyond public on SATs and much more...Not to mention common sense.

I have a slightly different take on this subject then most people, but I was surprised to see that it is very similar to the one mentioned by highfreq on page one.

I do believe that the present Earth was created in 7 days, or in accordance with the “day=1000years” translation of the bible, 7000 years. However I believe that the Earth itself is physically much much older, and this is stated in the Bible itself:

Ecc 1:4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

I believe that when the current creation of earth occurred this was the state of the actual planet:

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

If you notice there is no time given between the period when God created the heavens and the earth, and when this creation started. So the way I see it it goes like this:

This states that God originally created the earth, but gives no date or timeline for it:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Then something made the earth barren:

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Its also interesting to note that the word “was” above can also be translated to “became”.

So God made the current creation in a period of 7000 years starting here:

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

I believe that after this current world is destroyed the whole system will have the potential to be reset again, as this verse about the “end of the world” shows:

Jer 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
Jer 4:24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
Jer 4:25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
Jer 4:26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.

So after the end, everything is reset back to being like as was exactly prior to this creation.

This also seems to fit with what we know about the fossil record, and mass extinctions. Beside this, it fits with the lore of multiple other ancient cultures. Almost every other ancient culture had a flood mythos, even though they predate the flood of Noah, meaning they are two different events. I do have a compiled list of most of these myths, which are known today, but it well exceeds what I am willing to type in this post.

It has been said in many scientific papers that the Fossil record actually shows a very violent past for this planet, with the world having been completely wiped out multiple times before, and new life popping up at the next layer of strata up. We see this to a degree again after the flood of Noah, when domestic animals first come to exist.

This has also been seen in the blood lines of humans where some researchers have shown there to be population bottlenecks, due again to mass extinctions and global catastrophes. Its no big secret that the leading explanation for the extinction of the dinosaurs was an impact into the Yucatan Peninsula. It should also be obvious to anyone who understands what is involved in an asteroid impact that one of the significant side effects of one is Tsunamis. Tsunamis of such tremendous height, size and power, that they would literally fit the description of the floods mentioned in all ancient cultures mythos. Such massive ones that they can easily move sea life to the tops of mountains where we find evidence of it to this day.

One study I have become familiar with shows that there was an asteroid impact into multiple oceans around 12,000 BC. This would have been a fragmented heavenly body similar to Shoemaker-Levy impact with Jupiter. The impact has been dated using tree rings, ice cores, and magnetic fluctuation in iron samples. So if this is the impact which caused the flood stories of other cultures, then there would be few humans on this planet, yet each seemed to have its own Noah. Its entirely possible that many of those stories are related back to a couple of small groups of people, or even a single person/family.

This means that it is possible that some other humans were on the planet at the time of Adam and Eve, or perhaps a previous, less advanced form of human, such as the Neanderthals. The Adam and Eve story is about the creation in the Garden of Gods chosen people who would foster the blood line leading up to Christ, the line of David. This goes a long way IMHO in explaining Canes fear of running into other people out in the world who would seek to kill him after he was exiled from his people.

Now here comes the funny bit, if this did occur at 12000 BC, and we go forward 7000 years (7 days) we end up at 5000 BC…
5000 BC is the traditional biblical date for the Adam and Eve story.

There is even more proof that the flood of Noah in 3000 BC is related to a smaller asteroid impact into a small sea in the area of Iraq. This is interesting in the fact that it would not require Noah to save all the animals in the entire world, but rather the ones local to him, in the “Known World” of Noah’s time. If you read the texts of several of the more credible pseudopigraphal texts concerning the time around this period, you’ll find mention of the flood being an event of both “Fire and Water”. This is very consistent with the effects of an Astral Body impacting with a shallow ocean.

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by Rasobasi420

 

Have you never heard of the Declaration of Independance???
"endowed by our Creator with certain inaliable rights...."

not a governing document.

Did you know the church services held by our founding fathers before, during and after meetings???

did you know that not everyone that goes to a church service is a christian? hell, i'm an atheist and i go to them sometimes.

George Washington thanked God for saving his life, many times.

and he was a deist...

Homeschoolers excel way beyond public on SATs and much more...Not to mention common sense.

for 1, the SAT is merely a measure of how well you take the SAT.. 2, it has nothing to do with the system, but with who goes in either system
3.... you lose on the common sense point because you failed to see the common sense that is lacking in your point on both the SATs and your comparison.

Originally posted by Methuselah
according to my education (homeschooling, which offered me a lot of time to study history) this country was founded on Christianity.

then you were lied to... as i pointed out, within a decade of the constitution's ratification they acknowledged that the government is founded on no religion

thats why we have our freedom and that is the only reason we are the most powerful country.

no, it'd be more a combination of other more complex factors of resources, isolation, and a genocide against an indigenous population (which happened to be carried out in the name of christ, in many cases)

go ahead and kick God out, see what happens.

hard to kick out what wasn't there originally...

we took prayer out of schools, look what happened there.

um... you can still pray to yourself in school... all they did was remove mandatory school led prayer.. which was inherently unconstitutional.

kids bring guns to school and shoot people these days.

yes, because correlation = causation...

back when prayer and bibles were allowed in school, things were a lot better. kids would get in trouble for shooting spitballs. now they go to jail because they shot a classmate.

also, back in the same day those kids didn't get in trouble for beating minorities and homosexuals half to death... that is, if the minorities were allowed to be in the same school as them

hm... looks like someone is looking at the past with bias

check out this website
www.afn.org...
maybe this will help clear some things up for you.

the article provides 0 citation... and uses...a...lot...of..ellipses. i want full quotes here, so i can actually see what ben franklin said, not just that little part

"...God governs in the affairs of man"
deistic god... not necessarily a christian one. see, many of the founders were deists...
and why haven't you addressed that the stuff you pointed out earlier was added in the repressive 50s?
and why haven't you addressed any of my points?

Originally posted by Methuselah
then when I actually went to public school, it finally clicked that none of that stuff made sense and that evolution was the dumbest theory ever.

no, that would go to heliocentrism or to flat earth theory... take your pick

oh and funny how the theory changed from "man came from monkeys" to "humans and monkeys share a common ancestor"
evolution is flawed, they keep changing it and they keep lying about it.

the theory never was "humans came from monkeys"
even if it was... theories are subject to change as available evidence grows and grows... that's kind of how science works. science doesn't make a theory and then say "it's 100% right!"
science makes a theory based on the evidence... if the evidence grows, the theory changes because the available data changes.

the bible hasnt changed except through translation (you get that with anything, you always lose when you translate, thats what footnotes are for)

yeah, which is why it's dogmatic religion...
science changed because it admits it was wrong.... that's kind of what makes it great.

since i was a little kid i used to ponder the the phenomenon of infinity.how could something just go on and on ,and on,and on without any end?in the same sense,i used to ponder how something could not have a beginning.how could something,anything,always have been here?i came to the same conclusion on both.its impossible.no human can understand nor explain this phenomenon.therefore,i figured that there has to be a supreme being that does understand this and therefore,there must be a god,simple as that.

Originally posted by Clearskies
Also, Melatonin,
spare your condescension for public school students like I was,
before I quit in 9th grade just to get away from all the meaningless
amorality!!!
Homeschoolers excel way beyond public on SATs and much more...Not to mention common sense.

Or so the research by reconstructionist funded organisations suggests.

Much of the research is highly questionable. Sampling bias is strong.

If we go by the single example we have here, methman, I don't see any benefits education-wise to Xian homeschooling. But I'm sure he's a good defender of a certain right-wing Xian 'reality'. The same people who aim for a christian theocracy in the US. Hence all the 'christian nation' BS.

But thanks for highlighting that this is not really about education, but supposed 'amorality'.

[edit on 8-9-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by rich1411
since i was a little kid i used to ponder the the phenomenon of infinity.how could something just go on and on ,and on,and on without any end?in the same sense,i used to ponder how something could not have a beginning.how could something,anything,always have been here?i came to the same conclusion on both.its impossible.no human can understand nor explain this phenomenon.therefore,i figured that there has to be a supreme being that does understand this and therefore,there must be a god,simple as that.

So, in essence, god is a 'semantic stopsign' for you.

Just thought i'd add some quotes from Charles Darwin....


“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”

“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference”

"In scientific investigations, it is permitted to invent any hypothesis and, if it explains various large and independent classes of facts, it rises to the rank of a well-grounded theory."

"Probably all organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed. There is grandeur in this view of life that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

"I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to show why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct species by descent from some lower from, through the laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction. The birth both of the species and of the individual are equally parts of that grand sequence of events, which our minds refuse to accept as the result of blind chance."




""LONG before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to theory.
These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:—First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some other animal with widely different habits and structure? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, an organ of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, an organ so wonderful as the eye?
Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection? What shall we say to the instinct which leads the bee to make cells, and which has practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians?
Fourthly, how can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterile offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired?""


The quotes above come from The Descent Of Man & The Origin Of Species.

Note that Darwin himself questioned his own theory.It has been others that have turned his theory into a fact.

Originally posted by jakyll
Note that Darwin himself questioned his own theory.It has been others that have turned his theory into a fact.

indeed... he questioned a theory that didn't have half the evidence we have for it now...

however, there is no real need to question the theory these days without a feasible alternative (one of which has yet to be presented). it's well established science with mountains of supporting evidence, it's essentially fact.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Oh,i know in this day and age that there is more fact in the theory.I just wanted to show people who use Darwin's Origin of Species as some kind of bible that he himself knew that until the evidence was found his theory would be just that,a theory.

And just because he questioned it,people shouldn't then immediatly jump to the conclusion that "God" must have created everything.the evidence for evolution is getting stronger and stronger,but there is still no "missing link" between man and ape.

Where do we want the missing link? A is modern chimp, N is modern human. All the major fossils in between.

It's such a bad concept. Of course there will always be 'missing links', we are talking about a process that has been ongoing every day for a few billion years. All we have is multiple snapshots. When we find another new homonid-ape fossil there will still be more 'missing links'. We can never fulfill the idea of the missing link.

Shermer explains the problem well.

[edit on 8-9-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

But thanks for highlighting that this is not really about education, but supposed 'amorality'.

[edit on 8-9-2007 by melatonin]

I wasn't a christian at all when I quit school.
Just someone who was behind (especially in algebra!)
and who wanted to follow Guns and Roses around the country!!!
Only one teacher, a black lady who was a christian, asked me about my drug use.
Modern Academia usually fails young people when it comes to matters of the heart and moral instruction....
Since there is no mention most of the time in school about creationism, evolution seems to make young people act like "intelligent" animals, like it did me.

reply to post by melatonin


I was merely using the words of Darwin,who believed in a missing link.

But as you've pointed out,there is always going to be more than one and,as i've said before,science is a continuous investigation.

Although i believe in evolution,right now i don't think humans are descended from any kind of ape or monkey.This is still a subject i'm learning about,so there are plenty of gaps in my knowledge

I see you put up that skull chart

I wonder if Hitler's "scientists" had anything to do with the collection of them. You know his people went everywhere they could during the 40's to study skull structure and evolution....Mongolia, Africa and even Iran or Iraq.

Originally posted by Clearskies
Modern Academia usually fails young people when it comes to matters of the heart and moral instruction....

Since there is no mention most of the time in school about creationism, evolution seems to make young people act like "intelligent" animals, like it did me.

So, you think learning evolution caused your drug problems? That's quite funny.

What about Haggard? What about Hovind? Fervent deniers of evolution, both criminals. One a prostitute-using homosexual drug abuser, t'other a tax dodger.

I can agree to an extent that schools fail to teach morals. But I'm not sure that schools should have the primary job of doing this. Starts at home I believe. There is such a mix of morals derived from home and people of faith. How can a school cover them all. They can provide an outline moral guideline, provided in the school rules, and through socialisation. But just like bible-believers and their moral code, the rules will be broken.

So, who to blame? The schools/bible or the puplis/believers?

I see you put up that skull chart

I wonder if Hitler's "scientists" had anything to do with the collection of them. You know his people went everywhere they could during the 40's to study skull structure and evolution....Mongolia, Africa and even Iran or Iraq.

I don't think that Hitler's scientists had anything to do with these paleontological finds. These are fossils of homonids spanning millions of years.

[edit on 8-9-2007 by melatonin]

reply to post by Clearskies


Creationism can be taught at school in one easy lesson;God did it!

Evolution takes much longer to learn and understand.

So there's time enough for both to be taught.Then you let the kids make up their own minds!
Which has to be better than having one or the other rammed down their throats.

reply to post by Clearskies


Are you serious?

You think a skull chart is linked with the Nazi's?
They may have gone around measuring skulls but the purpose was to prove the existance of a superior race(meaning themselves)not to discover the answers to evolution!

Originally posted by jakyll
I was merely using the words of Darwin,who believed in a missing link.

Darwin also thought that heredity was a sort of blood mixing.

I think at his time, saying we didn't have a missing link was OK. But suggesting we need the missing link is a fallacy. Even with all the fossils above we have missing links between each. When we find one to bridge a gap, we now have two more gaps. It's a never-ending pursuit.

Just a bad concept that continues to this day.

Although i believe in evolution,right now i don't think humans are descended from any kind of ape or monkey.This is still a subject i'm learning about,so there are plenty of gaps in my knowledge

You should check out the evidence I provided in another thread, about chromosome 2, ERVs, and pseudogenes.

Starts here.

I think we all have gaps in our knowledge, it's good that you see this as a learning effort, it's a neverending pursuit, but a good fulfilling one.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Clearskies
Modern Academia usually fails young people when it comes to matters of the heart and moral instruction....

Since there is no mention most of the time in school about creationism, evolution seems to make young people act like "intelligent" animals, like it did me.

So, you think learning evolution caused your drug problems? That's quite funny.

Somewhat..when you think there is no God, there becomes one reason to achieve. For your gratification. If drugs help you "maintain" a good attitude then why not, if there is no ultimate authority (and you can fool everyone around you.)? I've been quit for 10 years,right after I quit smoking. BTW, I got my G.E.D. after two night classes at 17.

What about Haggard? What about Hovind? Fervent deniers of evolution, both criminals. One a prostitute-using homosexual drug abuser, t'other a tax dodger.

I have to say I watched Haggard a couple of years ago. I didn't like him, he seemed real Gay! I have been on the lookout for "wolves in sheep's clothing" for many years as a result of the charismatic churches.

Hovind on the other hand just wants to keep up his ministry, without having to be taxed to death.

I can agree to an extent that schools fail to teach morals. But I'm not sure that schools should have the primary job of doing this. Starts at home I believe. There is such a mix of morals derived from home and people of faith. How can a school cover them all. They can provide an outline moral guideline, provided in the school rules, and through socialisation. But just like bible-believers and their moral code, the rules will be broken.

Young people need even more guidance and instruction when they go off to school to be crowded into everyone else.

So, who to blame? The schools/bible or the puplis/believers?

All of the above.

I don't think that Hitler's scientists had anything to do with these anthropological finds. These are fossils of homonids spanning millions of years.

Yes, but they were found within the last couple of hundred years, maybe by German scientists as part of the paperclip program.


[edit on 8-9-2007 by melatonin]

[edit on 8-9-2007 by Clearskies]